[extropy-chat] Petals around the rose

[David Lubkin]

Harvey wrote:

>I frequently have problems with puzzles that give three numbers and want 
>the next in the sequence, because I can often see multiple different 
>sequences that would start with the same four numbers.  I also have 
>problems with a set of four words and choosing which one doesn't 
>belong.  Often there are different groups of the three that exclude a 
>different fourth.  The devisors of these puzzles usually have one obvious 
>answer in mind, but there are often others they didn't consider.

Hence my father's conjecture that an IQ test cannot accurately measure the 
intelligence of someone smarter than the author of the test.

A better way to handle such situations -- sequences, analogies (a is to b 
as c is to ?) -- is to accept any answer but require the testee to provide 
the basis for the answer.

The sequence problems are the most idiotic. Given any finite sequence 
S(1:n) and any number m, one can devise a formula that results in S(1:n+1), 
where S(n+1) = m. The problem becomes guessing which, out of an infinity of 
formulas, would be thought most obvious or elegant.

(Actually, it's worse than that -- there are an infinite number of possible 
m's and, for each m, there are an infinite number of formulas, since one 
can always add pairs of operations that cancel each other.)


-- David Lubkin.